nmm 22 4500ICPSR08355MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1985 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR08355MiAaIMiAaI
Alternative Probation Strategies in Baltimore, Maryland
[electronic resource]
James J. Collins
2006-01-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1985ICPSR8355NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The purpose of this study was to assess the relative
cost-effectiveness of supervised probation, unsupervised probation,
and community service. Data were collected from several sources:
input-intake forms used by the State of Maryland, probation officers'
case record files, Maryland state police rap sheets, FBI sources, and
interviews with Maryland probationers. Non-violent, less serious
offenders who normally received probation sentences of 12 months or
less were offered randomly selected assignments to one of three
treatment methods over a five-month period. Baseline data for
probationers in each of the three samples were drawn from an intake
form that was routinely completed for cases. An interim assessment of
recidivism was made at the midpoint of the intervention for each
probationer using information drawn from police records. Probationers
were interviewed six and twelve months after probation
ended. Demographic information on the probationers includes sex, race,
age, birthplace, marital status, employment status, and education.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08355.v1
alternatives to institutionalizationicpsrcommunity service programsicpsrcost effectivenessicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrinmate release plansicpsroffendersicpsrpostrelease programsicpsrprobation servicesicpsrprobationersicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrrecidivismicpsrsentencingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemDSDR XII. Childhood ObesityNACJD V. CourtsCollins, James J.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)8355Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08355.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR08259MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1985 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR08259MiAaIMiAaI
Cost Effectiveness of Misdemeanant Probation in Hamilton County, Ohio, 1981-1982
[electronic resource]
Richard Hartigan
2006-01-18Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1985ICPSR8259NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This research was designed to determine whether the
supervision of misdemeanant probationers was cost-effective for
increasing the level of successful probation completions in Hamilton
County, Ohio. The primary objective was to examine the relationships
among these factors: supervision costs, the collection of court costs,
fines, and restitution, types of supervision, risk assessment, and
probationer conduct for the population of probationers. Probationers
were initially classified according to risk assessment and then
randomly assigned to a supervision category. The probationer's risk
potential was a numerical score derived from demographic background
variables, prior record, and history of substance use. The DSCP
(Degree of Successful Completion of Probation) was developed
specifically to measure probationer conduct and to compare trends and
relationships. The variables examined in the study include: risk
assessment at intake, supervision level assigned, number of times the
probationer was assigned to probation, start and planned termination
dates, date of last status change, status at termination, degree of
successful completion of probation achieved, costs incurred in
administering probation, and amounts collected from each probationer
for court costs, restitution, and fines. Although data were collected
on 7,072 misdemeanant probation experiences, there are only 2,756
probationers included in the study. The remaining 4,316 cases were
excluded due to failure of the probationer to show up for screening or
for other reasons that did not meet the research criteria.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08259.v1
administrative costsicpsrcost effectivenessicpsrcourt costsicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrprobationicpsrprobation conditionsicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrrestitution programsicpsrrisk assessmenticpsrsupervised libertyicpsrNACJD III. CorrectionsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemHartigan, RichardInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)8259Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08259.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR26101MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2009 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR26101MiAaIMiAaI
Empirical Investigation of "Going to Scale" in Drug Interventions in the United States, 1990, 2003
[electronic resource]
Avinash Singh Bhati
,
John Roman
2009-08-26Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2009ICPSR26101NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
Despite a growing consensus among scholars that substance abuse treatment is effective in reducing offending, strict eligibility rules have limited the impact of current models of therapeutic jurisprudence on public safety. This research effort was aimed at providing policy makers some guidance on whether expanding this model to more drug-involved offenders is cost-beneficial. Since data needed for providing evidence-based analysis of this issue were not readily available, micro-level data from three nationally representative sources were used to construct a 40,320 case synthetic dataset -- defined using population profiles rather than sampled observation -- that was used to estimate the benefits of going to scale in treating drug involved offenders. The principal investigators combined information from the NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AND HEALTH, 2003 (ICPSR 4138) and the ARRESTEE DRUG ABUSE MONITORING (ADAM) PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES, 2003 (ICPSR 4020) to estimate the likelihood of drug addiction or dependence problems and develop nationally representative prevalence estimates. They used information in the DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT OUTCOME STUDY (DATOS), 1991-1994 (ICPSR 2258) to compute expected crime reducing benefits of treating various types of drug involved offenders under four different treatment modalities. The project computed expected crime reducing benefits that were conditional on treatment modality as well as arrestee attributes and risk of drug dependence or abuse. Moreover, the principal investigators obtained estimates of crime reducing benefits for all crimes as well as select sub-types. Variables include age, race, gender, offense, history of violence, history of treatment, co-occurring alcohol problem, criminal justice system status, geographic location, arrest history, and a total of 134 prevalence and treatment effect estimates and variances.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26101.v1
drug offender profilesicpsrADAM/DUF Programicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsrdrug treatmenticpsrdrug useicpsrsimulation modelsicpsrsubstance abuse treatmenticpsrtherapeutic jurisprudenceicpsrtreatment programsicpsrtrendsicpsrcost effectivenessicpsrcrime patternsicpsrcrime reductionicpsrcriminality predictionicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug courtsicpsrdrug dependenceicpsrNACJD XI. Drugs, Alcohol, and CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemBhati, Avinash SinghRoman, JohnInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)26101Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR26101.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06236MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1994 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06236MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of the Los Angeles County Regimented Inmate Diversion (RID) Program, 1990-1991
[electronic resource]
James Austin
,
Michael Jones
,
Melissa Bolyard
1994-10-19Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1994ICPSR6236NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection documents an evaluation of the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Regimented Inmate Diversion (RID) program
conducted with male inmates who were participants in the program
during September 1990-August 1991. The evaluation was designed to
determine whether county-operated boot camp programs for male inmates
were feasible and cost-effective. An evaluation design entailing both
process and impact components was undertaken to fully assess the
overall effects of the RID program on offenders and on the county jail
system. The process component documented how the RID program actually
operated in terms of its selection criteria, delivery of programs,
length of participation, and program completion rates. Variables
include demographic/criminal data (e.g., race, date of birth, arrest
charge, bail and amount, sentence days, certificates acquired, marital
status, employment status, income), historical state and county arrest
data (e.g., date of crime, charge, disposition, probation time, jail
time, type of crime), boot camp data (e.g., entry into and exit from
boot camp, reason for exit, probation dates, living conditions,
restitution order), drug history data (e.g., drug used, frequency,
method), data on drug tests, and serious incidence data. The impact
data were collected on measures of recidivism, program costs,
institutional behavior, and RID's effect on jail crowding.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06236.v1
cost effectivenessicpsrmale offendersicpsrprison inmatesicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrshock incarceration programsicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD III. CorrectionsAustin, JamesJones, MichaelBolyard, MelissaInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6236Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06236.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR28044MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2010 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR28044MiAaIMiAaI
Evaluation of the Target Corporation's Safe City Initiative in Chula Vista, California, and Cincinnati, Ohio, 2004-2008
[electronic resource]
Nancy LaVigne
2010-09-29Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2010ICPSR28044NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
he specified type of crime in the displacement area, the cost of the specified type of crime in a matched comparison area, the city, and the crime type. The Safe City Business Survey Data (Part 3) contain 132 variables relating to perceptions of safety, contact with local police, experience and reporting of crime, impact of crime, crime prevention, community connections, and business/employee information.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28044.v1
crime patternsicpsrcrime preventionicpsrcrime reportingicpsrevaluationicpsrpolice citizen interactionsicpsrpolice community relationsicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrreactions to crimeicpsrretail industryicpsrcommunity involvementicpsrcost effectivenessicpsrcrime controlicpsrcrime control programsicpsrcrime costsicpsrcrime impacticpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD II. Community StudiesLaVigne, NancyInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)28044Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28044.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR08407MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s1985 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR08407MiAaIMiAaI
Implementation of Community Corrections in Oregon, Colorado, and Connecticut [1981]
[electronic resource]
Dennis J. Palumbo
,
Michael Musheno
,
Steven Maynard-Moody
2006-01-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1985ICPSR8407NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
Data were collected from three states to evaluate the
success of community corrections programs and to identify the
conditions that underlie these successes. In-person field interviews,
telephone interviews, and mailback questionnaires were used at state,
county, and district levels. The variables in the study were designed
to examine the kinds of people who implement and maintain these
programs, the level of commitment by judicial and prison officials to
these programs, community support, and the goals of cost reduction,
work training, and rehabilitation.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08407.v1
achievementicpsrcommunitiesicpsrcommunity service programsicpsrcorrectional facilitiesicpsrcost effectivenessicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrgoalsicpsrparole servicesicpsrpersonnelicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrrehabilitation programsicpsrsuccessicpsrtrainingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD III. CorrectionsPalumbo, Dennis J.Musheno, MichaelMaynard-Moody, StevenInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)8407Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08407.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR30983MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150802s2012 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR30983MiAaIMiAaI
Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), 2003-2009
[electronic resource]
Shelli B. Rossman
,
John K. Roman
,
Janine M. Zweig
,
Michael Rempel
,
Christine H. Lindquist
2012-11-05Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2012ICPSR30983NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-08-02.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) study included 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites selected from 8 states across the country. The purpose of the study was to: (1) Test whether drug courts reduce drug use, crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, in comparision with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts, (2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key individual and program factors that make drug courts more or less effective in achieving their desired outcomes, (3) explain how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the effectiveness of drug court programs, and (4) examine whether drug courts generate cost savings.
Offenders in all 29 sites were surveyed in 3 waves, at baseline, 6 months later, and 18 months after enrollment. The research comprises three major components: process evaluation, impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis. The process evaluation describes how the 23 drug court sites vary in program eligibility, supervision, treatment, team collaboration, and other key policies and practices. The impact evaluation examines whether drug courts produce better outcomes than comparison sites and tests which court policies and offender attitudes might explain those effects. The cost-benefit analysis evaluates drug court costs and benefits.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30983.v1
cost effectivenessicpsrcourt systemicpsrcourtsicpsrcrime controlicpsrcrime control policiesicpsrcrime control programsicpsrdrug abuseicpsrdrug courtsicpsrdrug law enforcementicpsrdrug law offensesicpsrdrug offendersicpsrdrug related crimesicpsroutcome evaluationicpsrprocess evaluationicpsrNAHDAP I. National Addiction and HIV Data Archive ProgramICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD V. CourtsNACJD VII. Crime and DelinquencyRossman, Shelli B.Roman, John K.Zweig, Janine M.Rempel, MichaelLindquist, Christine H.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)30983Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30983.v1